Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 205–224 | Cite as

Perceived personal immunity to the consequences of drinking alcohol: The relationship between behavior and perception

  • William B. Hansen
  • Anne E. Raynor
  • Bonnie H. Wolkenstein
Article

Abstract

Heavy drinkers, moderate drinkers, light drinkers, and nondrinkers were asked to rate a variety of negative health and social consequences of using alcohol. Subjects made probability ratings for fictional others who were heavy, moderate, or light drinkers or nondrinkers. Subjects also made probability ratings for themselves as hypothetical heavy, moderate, or light drinkers or nondrinkers and for themselves actually. A pattern of perceived personal immunity was found across groups. Subjects rated fictional others and themselves as hypothetical drinkers to be more likely to experience negative consequences than their actual selves. All groups of subjects (heavy, moderate, and light drinkers and abstainers) rated their actual chances of experiencing negative consequences to be approximately equal. In contrast, heavy drinkers saw the effects of drinking for other heavy drinkers as less likely than did subjects who had light or abstinent drinking patterns who rated fictional heavy drinkers. These findings suggest that individuals who drink more tend to deny the potential harm that may result from alcohol consumption. Short-term social consequences were viewed as most likely to occur. Long-term consequences were perceived as least likely to occur.

Key words

denial alcohol consumption beliefs perceptions negative consequences personal immunity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 36: 56–71.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, S. A. (1985). Expectancies versus background in the prediction of college drinking patterns.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 53: 123–129.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., and Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 48: 419–426.Google Scholar
  4. Christiansen, B. A., and Goldman, M. S. (1983). Alcohol-related expectancies versus demographic/background variables in the prediction of adolescent drinking.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 51: 249–257.Google Scholar
  5. Christiansen, B. A., Goldman, M. S., and Inn, A. (1982). Development of alcohol-related expectancies in adolescents: Separating pharmacological from social-learning influences.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 50: 336–344.Google Scholar
  6. Christiansen, B. A., Smith, G. T., Roehling, P. V., and Goldman, M. S. (1989). Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 57: 93–99.Google Scholar
  7. Critchlow, B. (1986). The powers of John Barleycorn: Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on social behavior.Am. Psychol. 41: 571–764.Google Scholar
  8. Critchlow Leigh, B. (1987). Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on self and others.J. Stud. Alcohol 48: 467–475.Google Scholar
  9. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Hansen, W. B., and Malotte, K. (1986). Perceived personal immunity: The development of beliefs about susceptibility to the consequences of smoking.Prevent. Med. 15: 363–372.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., Lundy, B. Z., Pearson, J. L., Flay, B. R., and Johnson, C. A. (1988). Differential impact of three alcohol prevention curricula on hypothesized mediating variables.J. Drug Educ. 18: 143–153.Google Scholar
  12. Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Jellison, J. M., and Green, J. (1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 40: 643–649.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Jones, E. E.,et al. (eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, General Learning Press, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, C. (1989). Perceptions of immunity to disease in adult smokers.J. Behav. Med. 12: 267–277.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, D. T., and Ross, M. (1975). Self serving biases in the attribution of causality: Factor or fiction?Psychol. Bull. 82: 213–225.Google Scholar
  17. Monson, T. C., and Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process: Toward a reconceptualization.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13: 114–119.Google Scholar
  18. Pandina, R. J. (1986). Methods, problems, and trends in studies of adolescent drinking practices.Ann. Behav. Med. 8: 20–26.Google Scholar
  19. Rohsenow, D. J. (1983). Drinking habits and expectancies about alcohol's effects for self versus others.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 51: 752–756.Google Scholar
  20. Roizen, R. (1983). Loosening up: General-population views of the effects of alcohol. In Room, R., and Collins, G. (eds.),Alcohol and Disinhibition: Nature and Meaning of the Link, NIAAA Research Monograph No. 12, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 83-1246, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 236–257.Google Scholar
  21. Southwick, L., Steele, C., Marlatt, A., and Lindell, M. (1981). Alcohol-related expectancies: Defined by phase of intoxication and drinking experience.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 49: 713–721.Google Scholar
  22. Stacey, A. S., Widaman, K. F., and Marlatt, A. G. (1991). Expectancy models of alcohol use.J. Soc. Personal. Psychol. (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Steele, C. M., and Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects.Am. Psychol. 45: 921–933.Google Scholar
  24. Storms, M. D. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actor's and observer's point of view.J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 27: 165–175.Google Scholar
  25. Tobler, N. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group.J. Drug Issues, 16: 537–567.Google Scholar
  26. Uchalik, D. C. (1979). A comparison of questionnaire and self-monitored reports of alcohol intake in a nonalcoholic population.Addict. Behav. 4: 409–413.Google Scholar
  27. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39: 806–820.Google Scholar
  28. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility.Health Psychol. 3: 431–457.Google Scholar
  29. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample.J. Behav. Med. 10: 481–499.Google Scholar
  30. Weinstein, N. D. (1988). The precaution adoption process.Health Psychol. 7: 355–386.Google Scholar
  31. Weinstein, N. D., Grubb, P. D., and Vautier, J. S. (1986). Increasing automobile seat belt use: An intervention emphasizing risk susceptibility.J. Appl. Psychol. 71: 285–290.Google Scholar
  32. Whaley, A. L. (1986). Cognitive processes in adolescent drug use: The role of positivity bias and implications for prevention policy.Int. J. Addict. 21: 393–398.Google Scholar
  33. White, H. R., and Labouvie, E. W. (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking.J. Stud. Alcohol 50: 30–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • William B. Hansen
    • 1
  • Anne E. Raynor
    • 2
  • Bonnie H. Wolkenstein
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, Bowman Gray School of MedicineWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem
  2. 2.Diabetes Education Center of Arizona, Inc.Arizona
  3. 3.University of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations